There has been a lot written about why Mr Corbyn failed to attend the Privy Council earlier this month.

But it was clear, when he gave an interview to the BBC in September, that he just didn’t want to.

When BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg told him that joining the Privy Council involved kneeling before the Queen, he responded: “I didn’t know that was involved actually. So we’ll have to find out about it. Ok?”

Asked directly if he would do it, he paused before quietly saying: “Ok. Thank you.”

Asked again whether he would kneel, he said: “To be quite honest it’s the first time I have heard that is part of it. So can we leave it at that?”

A lot of people would no doubt sympathise with Mr Corbyn’s reluctance to take part in the ceremony - and might also ask what purpose the Privy Council really plays today.

Membership of the body entitles politicians, such as the Leader of the Opposition, to see confidential information such as reports from the security services.

But there’s no reason access to this information should be connected to membership of a council which supposedly advises the Queen.

However, if the whole thing is so trivial and silly, wouldn’t it make sense to just get it out of the way? After all, Mr Corbyn can always abolish the Privy Council if he becomes Prime Minister.

Instead, there is ongoing confusion about if and when Mr Corbyn is going to join this thing (which, rightly or wrongly, is one of the duties of the Leader of the Opposition, the job he has chosen to do).

And it seems he’s still trying to find a way to join without having to bend down to the Queen - but hasn’t quite worked out whether that’s possible or not.

None of this means that Mr Corbyn hates his country or is a threat to your security. He doesn’t hate this country and is not a threat to your security, certainly not when it comes to your physical safety.

Whether his economic policies threaten the economy and job security, as the Tories also claim, is something the parties can continue to argue about.

But the saga isn’t a sign that Mr Corbyn is a threat. It’s a sign of the chaos at the top of the Labour Party at the moment.

Consider the row over Syria, which saw Birmingham Labour MP Jess Phillips accuse Diane Abbott, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, of bullying.

As things stand, there is no line on whether the UK should take military action in Syria for Labour MPs to follow.

John McDonnell. the Shadow Chancellor, said there should be a free vote - but Mr Corbyn’s spokesman points out that the leader himself has never said this.

If there is in fact a whip - so that Labour MPs are told how to vote - we can only guess what it will be.

It seems clear that Mr Corbyn opposes the idea of the UK taking action in Syria, but he’s also repeatedly said that he won’t impose his views on the party and instead wants to have debates.

Jess Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley

In these circumstance, it can’t be called disloyal for backbench Labour MPs to express an opinion.

Yet when two of them did exactly that (supporting military action) they were publicly criticised by Ms Abbott.

There was a time when Ms Abbott was a backbencher herself (though she was also a shadow health minister for three years). Now, however, she’s in the Shadow Cabinet, which makes her part of the leadership team.

Why was she attacking two MPs who did nothing wrong - and claiming they “want to support Cameron”, a pretty serious charge in Labour circles?

It suggests that even when the party isn’t divided, there are people at the top who seek to cause divisions. And Mr Corbyn did nothing to step in and close down the row.

Instead, it was left to Ms Phillips (Lab Birmingham Yardley), another backbencher, to come to the defence of the MPs.

Then we had a Labour u-turn over whether to support Chancellor George Osborne’s “fiscal charter,” which commits the Government to eliminating the budget deficit and running a surplus.

It’s a silly gimmick. No Chancellor needs a law to dictate their tax and spending plans.

But it was a gimmick when Mr McDonnell announced Labour would support it - and when he changed his mind two weeks later.

Asked whether Labour MPs were confused in a BBC interview, Mr McDonnell said: “Most probably yes”. He went on to promise to clear up the confusion.

A lot of Labour MPs disagreed with Mr Corbyn’s politics, but they assumed - or feared - he would at least be competent as leader.